So you are saying ll laws should be re-active and never pro=active. I guess we disagree again. I think laws should be made to prevent damage, not after the damage as been done.

Logged

"Listen to the mustn'ts, child. Listen to the don'ts. Listen to the shouldn'ts, the impossibles, the won'ts. Listen to the never haves, then listen close to me . . . Anything can happen, child. Anything can be"

texas does have a problem and it's the same one that AZ and other states have. they have a huge number of illegals and no good way to know if they are voting. it's not about who people might vote for, but about them being able to vote legally at all.

the reason the ACLU and the admin are going after these laws is not entirely the same issue. the left knows that the balance of illegal votes go to the liberal candidate. . it's a "constituency" they count on in states like TX and AZ.

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

To put it in terms we all understand. I don't believe in feeding hives that are full of stores... or treating hives that don't have a mite problem.

again, an issue for each state. i do think you'd be hard pressed to find a state that does not have some level of voter fraud. ID will not solve all problems, but it is a simple step in that direction.

you are looking at the wrong end of this, i think. the real question is why would people be against this? the complaint that is disenfranchises certain groups is BS.

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

I read it more as don't install mouse guards if there's no mice in the hives.

Logged

"Listen to the mustn'ts, child. Listen to the don'ts. Listen to the shouldn'ts, the impossibles, the won'ts. Listen to the never haves, then listen close to me . . . Anything can happen, child. Anything can be"

I still say our right wing beeks are just overly paranoid. Where is that cookoo bird icon when I need it :-D

Try to think logically for a minute like a lefty and weigh the benefits and risks in the behavior you’re suggesting is rampant. Would the benefit to the illegal alien outweigh the risk of getting caught and thrown in jail? Of coarse not. The alien would only have one (or two) votes in 65 million. He would have better odds of winning the lottery than throwing off a national election.

And no I don’t think iddee’s analogy is quite right. A better analogy would be putting a snipe guard on your hives to protect them from snow snipes.

OOPS!! I didn't know there had actually been thousands of snow snipes found. Many even living in Chicago and other large cities.

PS. Registration is a joke. They have registration drives where volunteers sit and register lines of people at places like fall festivals and fairs. Those volunteers have no idea how to recognize a fake ID.

Logged

"Listen to the mustn'ts, child. Listen to the don'ts. Listen to the shouldn'ts, the impossibles, the won'ts. Listen to the never haves, then listen close to me . . . Anything can happen, child. Anything can be"

[Art.] 11. [Elections and Elective Franchises.] All elections are to be free, and every inhabitant of the state of 18 years of age and upwards shall have an equal right to vote in any election.

that's interesting wording and i bet there is some written clarification, if not amendment, to that somewhere.

at any rate, no one wants to keep anyone from voting legally. it should be one of our most cherished and protected rights. however, it means little if those who do not have the right to vote, vote as easily as those who do.in that case, the real disenfranchised are people like me casting a vote that might be negated by someone down the road casting an opposing vote, illegally.

interesting that once again, those protesting the identification of legal voters, are the liberal wing of beemaster :-)

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

I haven't written a single letter to any Congress person or Statesman in protest of these laws... I am just a realist... These bills are driven by a single faction of the political spectrum. Driven in a year when their is a political advantage to take action. (they could have made the changes in the first session of 2009 and probably nobody would have questioned it) They are being driven in a State who have done things the way they do them now for the last 223 years. (referring to PA). If they want to change that then fine... it is none of my business. But they need to expect that somebody in the state is going to oppose the degradation of their Constitution. Just like somebody is going to have something to say about the degradation of the Second Amendment in the US Constitution.

Groups are within their rights to sue the Government if they feel their rights are being violated... Who are we to stand in protest of their right? They took the proper course of action and won.

So Yes I will shoot down anybody who publicly (on an internet forum) voices contempt for the Rights of others...

what in the heck are you talking about? read 15th, 19th, and 26th amendments to constitution. a state can not have laws contrary to the constitution. that means that PA can't allow non-citizens to vote.

this is a separate issue from requiring voter ID, but i'd suggest that because the constitution is pretty specific about who CAN vote, the state have an obligation to make sure that only those who can, do. ideally, the courts would back the constitution, but we all know that many times they do not.

Quote

If they want to change that then fine... it is none of my business.

i'd think that protecting our votes is everyone's business, but i guess you put the lie to that. adding a voter ID law is not a change, since PA already must restrict voting to citizens. ....now...some cities have considered allowing non-citizens to vote on local issues. i don't know the outcome of those considerations, but that would be a local issue, not federal.

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

The Green County case involved a group of entrenched Democrat Party county commissioners that lost their Democrat Party Primary race to a reform slate of Democrat Party commission candidates. During the General election however the incumbent commissioners (Soon to become ex-commissioners) mounted an independent write-in campaign in an attempt to keep their jobs. The county was headed for bankruptcy with the old guard in charge, and the citizens of Green County knew that they needed real change that they could not only believe in but that they could trust. The population of Green County is over 80% African American descent so I hardly think that there was a single Republican running for local office.

The incumbents paid $10 for each signature for absentee ballot requests (I think using Federal grant money) and registered the grave yard as well (No ID required then) and all the witness signatures were from only two or three people (two witness signatures OR a notary public seal are required for an absentee ballot request) and all the absentee ballots were mailed to just one address. (On a write-in ballot the name written in must be spelled the exact same way to count. You can’t vote for “William Smith” by writing in “Bill Smith or Will Smith” even if you have called William “Bill” “or “Will” all of your life or he is your brother, so you can see why they only wanted one person voting or writing in the names on these absentee ballots) On election day the slate of corrupt candidates overwhelmingly won a independent candidate split ticket write in campaign in a county where over 80% of the voters historically vote a straight Democrat ticket. All but 7 (I think) of the several 1,000s write in votes for the corrupt candidates were absentee ballots.

Even though this write-in election of independent candidates made a laughing stock out of the Alabama Democrat Party’s commitment to the party‘s own candidates, as well as putting the lie to the Party's stated commitment to help the very people they fought to harm, the people of Green County. The Democrat Party went on to defend the corrupt (independent candidate) defendants in court. The reason for this is because it was soon apparent that the illegal votes for state wide offices on these split ticket illegal absentee ballots tipped the election to Democrats in close state wide races. So the state Democrat Party adopted the outlook, “If we can’t beat em we’ll cheat em” Even if the State Democrat Party was originally not involved in or did not know about the illegal scam before hand, they tried for several years in court to benefit from it since the fraud gave the Democrat Party control of the State Supreme Court. I can not believe that some of us are so uneducated about the election process that I must go to these lengths to enlighten you. So all I can believe is that some of us would violate others right to enjoy the benefits of a fair election by opposing voter ID.

I wish to point out that Alabama did not enter the GOP column at least on a state wide biases until January 2011. This was after 136 full years of some of the most corrupt politicians that a Michael Moore, John Murtha, or an Al Franken could imagine. Pennsylvania is not known as the “Keystone State” for nothing. Pennsylvania is the keystone that is holding the Rust belt together and the Democrat Party is what is bear trading Pennsylvania's citizens into a dying spiral like a crippled duck. Pennsylvania is now and will continue to become a little more red every day, Rust Belt Red that is. Don't forget, the American family has LOST on average $4,000 dollars of cash INCOME during the 4 year reign of Barrack Obama and last Wednesday night he said that he was not yet through with you. You older middle class American are over 6 grand in the hole and sliding to the bottom like an ant in a doodle bug hole.

The Democrat Party as well as God must love poor people, if this were not so then why are the Democrats intent on pursuing long term economic policies that create more losers or poor people? And you Republicans thought that the Democrat Party didn't believe in God, well every year the Democrat special interest groups help God by pushing more of the middle class into the ranks of the poor so God can shower them with his love, instead of the Democrats favoring the poor and middle class with in Democrat Vice-President (a.k.a. Dan Quayle) Biden’s words "That three letter word J-O-B-S."

As for the Pennsylvania Constitution, it promises FAIR elections not UNFAIR ones. No one, not even the people opposed to voter ID laws can logically claim that voter ID laws violates the 14th Amendment or it’s promise of one man one vote. In fact (To quote Yogi Berra) “I will say this all over again, one more time.” Opposing efforts to ensure fair elections is a violation of the 14th Amendment and the very principles of democracy and freedom.

Like I said the people who were in opposition to the Law in Pa followed the appropriate procedure and won.. The rest of the country fighting over it doesn't change that. My opinion and your opinion doesn't really matter in this case.

"""Like I said the people who were in opposition to the Law in Pa followed the appropriate procedure and won.."""

AND, there was a very famous supreme court decision handed down in 1857.

Do you, Bluebee, believe all supreme court decisions are correct?

Logged

"Listen to the mustn'ts, child. Listen to the don'ts. Listen to the shouldn'ts, the impossibles, the won'ts. Listen to the never haves, then listen close to me . . . Anything can happen, child. Anything can be"

The PA decision was that the law was enacted for political gain and would disfranchise legal voters because it was being enacted too close to election day. The law is still allowed to be enacted, but not until after Nov 6. The polling station(s) will be allowed to ask for ID, but cannot prevent a registered voter from voting if they are unable to produce a state issued ID. Seems like a pretty reasonable decision to me.

Are all supreme ct decisions "right"? That doesn't really matter because the Courts decision is binding until somebody is able to convince the court otherwise... Dred Scott was correct at that time... Constitutional Amendment was required to over turn that ruling. So the argument can be made that the Court ruled based on the Constitution at that time.

Bluegrass reminds me of the song That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Logged

"Listen to the mustn'ts, child. Listen to the don'ts. Listen to the shouldn'ts, the impossibles, the won'ts. Listen to the never haves, then listen close to me . . . Anything can happen, child. Anything can be"

actually the dred scott was a bad decision. it overrode state and congressional authority and did it with no constitutional authority. roe v. wade was another really bad decision. it took authority from the states and created a new "right". there's a long list of things that various activist courts have done. the makeup of the courts is probably the most important reason to be very careful who you vote for in both state and federal elections. as you point out, what the courts say, can stand for many years, even if they are very wrong.

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....